I'm certainly onboard with doing something to de-lever the country. It's what any well-run business would do if it was in debt up to its eyeballs the way the US is. There's a tradeoff in what is "fair" and what is "in the best interest of the average American". Taxing everyone with a last name beginning with "A" at 90% and keeping everyone else's taxes the same would be an overall benefit to the average American - but no one would argue it's "fair" to target one group disproportionally like that. It's more well accepted to do that to the group of people that are multimillionaires or billionaires, because they can afford it, but I struggle to see how that's any more fair.
In theory I can get on board with taxing the ultra-wealthy more, for the benefit of the country, even though I don't think it's a fair practice. More people would be on board if there was some assurance that the money raised would be going towards paying down the ballooning debt. Something like: we'll raise $1T over the next X years via wealth taxes and put that money directly towards the national debt. However, in practice, we know that the $1T raised would be divvied up to other interests, say, $200B to Ukraine, $200B to fight climate change, $200B to social programs, $200B squandered away in various grifts and leakages as is customary any time the US government gets money, and maybe $200B at best would find its way to pay down the national debt.
